Annotation #4 Word count: 768 1. Title, director and release year? Title: “Pandora’s Promise” Director: Robert Stone Release Year: 2013 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film addresses energy consumption issue and the myths related to nuclear energy. It shows a direct connection between a population’s access to energy and better quality of life. More advanced countries consume more energy. The narrators of the movie predict an exponential energy growth that fossil fuels alone cannot solve. 3.How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? It features environmentalists and energy experts like Michael Shellenberger, Gwyneth Cravens and Richard Rhodes who have changed their minds about the use of nuclear energy and have come to realize that it could be perhaps the only feasible solution for the increasing consumption of energy over the world. They present some facts that are not known to major public. One of which is that the nuclear energy is the second safest energy source and that it actually is renewable. Also, they go into history of nuclear technology that most people are familiar with. They explain that the distrust from people about using nuclear energy is often related to nuclear bombs and millions of people being killed. Overall the film tries to convince the audience that nuclear energy is not evil and it could be one the best solutions for growing energy consumption. 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mostly goes over political, economic and informational problems. It talks about Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters that led people to connect nuclear power with thousands of people killed and health risks such as cancer. One of the interviewed people also mentioned the common misinformation that is related to renewable energy sources like solar energy and wind turbines. He said that they are extremely inefficient and could never replace current fossil fuels such as coal. 5.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the story about the major accident in Chernobyl was very convincing. They showed people who protested the nuclear energy because they thought millions of people died due to exposure to radiation where the actual number that died was 28 people. Also, they mentioned that none of those cases had reported cancer contrary to the popular belief. 6.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was great at convincing the audience that nuclear energy is not as dangerous as most people think. In fact, they attempted to say that there is nothing wrong with using nuclear energy as an alternative energy source but they didn’t presents the cons of the argument which made it seem less persuasive. If someone played devil’s advocate in this movie it would make more sense. 7.What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses all people since currently we have some misconceptions regarding nuclear energy. Also, if younger people get over this misconception they will be able to utilize and promote this type of energy to address the needs of more efficient energy source supply. 8.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe the film could benefit from broader scope. For example, if other types of renewable energy were presented the viewer would not get a feeling that they were tutored by a salesperson who is trying to push the product. 9.What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film is mostly focused on restoring the image of nuclear energy. It suggests that people could benefit from it and that with current advances in technology the risks of using this type of energy are not the same. It is much safer than most people would think. 10.What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching this film I went further to explore pros and cons of nuclear energy and found an article that lists a lot of cons that this film did not bother to mention: http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
Also, I was able to find a pretty good article that explains Layman’s terms how nuclear energy power plants work and safety precautions taken to protect the surrounding area. http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
Word count: 768
1. Title, director and release year?
Title: “Pandora’s Promise”
Director: Robert Stone
Release Year: 2013
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film addresses energy consumption issue and the myths related to nuclear energy. It shows a direct connection between a population’s access to energy and better quality of life. More advanced countries consume more energy. The narrators of the movie predict an exponential energy growth that fossil fuels alone cannot solve.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
It features environmentalists and energy experts like Michael Shellenberger, Gwyneth Cravens and Richard Rhodes who have changed their minds about the use of nuclear energy and have come to realize that it could be perhaps the only feasible solution for the increasing consumption of energy over the world. They present some facts that are not known to major public. One of which is that the nuclear energy is the second safest energy source and that it actually is renewable. Also, they go into history of nuclear technology that most people are familiar with. They explain that the distrust from people about using nuclear energy is often related to nuclear bombs and millions of people being killed. Overall the film tries to convince the audience that nuclear energy is not evil and it could be one the best solutions for growing energy consumption.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mostly goes over political, economic and informational problems. It talks about Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters that led people to connect nuclear power with thousands of people killed and health risks such as cancer. One of the interviewed people also mentioned the common misinformation that is related to renewable energy sources like solar energy and wind turbines. He said that they are extremely inefficient and could never replace current fossil fuels such as coal.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the story about the major accident in Chernobyl was very convincing. They showed people who protested the nuclear energy because they thought millions of people died due to exposure to radiation where the actual number that died was 28 people. Also, they mentioned that none of those cases had reported cancer contrary to the popular belief.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was great at convincing the audience that nuclear energy is not as dangerous as most people think. In fact, they attempted to say that there is nothing wrong with using nuclear energy as an alternative energy source but they didn’t presents the cons of the argument which made it seem less persuasive. If someone played devil’s advocate in this movie it would make more sense.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses all people since currently we have some misconceptions regarding nuclear energy. Also, if younger people get over this misconception they will be able to utilize and promote this type of energy to address the needs of more efficient energy source supply.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe the film could benefit from broader scope. For example, if other types of renewable energy were presented the viewer would not get a feeling that they were tutored by a salesperson who is trying to push the product.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film is mostly focused on restoring the image of nuclear energy. It suggests that people could benefit from it and that with current advances in technology the risks of using this type of energy are not the same. It is much safer than most people would think.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching this film I went further to explore pros and cons of nuclear energy and found an article that lists a lot of cons that this film did not bother to mention:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons/
Also, I was able to find a pretty good article that explains Layman’s terms how nuclear energy power plants work and safety precautions taken to protect the surrounding area.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm